People v. Stone , 2021 IL App (4th) 190332-U ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •             NOTICE                                                                       FILED
    This Order was filed under             
    2021 IL App (4th) 190332-U
                         October 28, 2021
    Supreme Court Rule 23 and is                                                            Carla Bender
    not precedent except in the                   NO. 4-19-0332                         4th District Appellate
    limited circumstances allowed                                                             Court, IL
    under Rule 23(e)(1).                 IN THE APPELLATE COURT
    OF ILLINOIS
    FOURTH DISTRICT
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                         )      Appeal from the
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                               )      Circuit Court of
    v.                                                )      Livingston County
    ETHAN STONE,                                                 )      No. 18CF122
    Defendant-Appellant.                              )
    )      Honorable
    )      Jennifer H. Bauknecht,
    )      Judge Presiding.
    JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court.
    Justices Turner and Steigmann concurred in the judgment.
    ORDER
    ¶1      Held: The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court erred in
    denying defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea at a hearing where
    defendant was effectively unrepresented by counsel.
    ¶2               Defendant, Ethan Stone, pled guilty to armed robbery, residential burglary, and
    two counts of home invasion in exchange for the State’s agreement to cap its sentencing
    recommendation at 26 years’ imprisonment. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of 26
    years’ imprisonment for armed robbery and the two counts of residential burglary. Thereafter,
    defendant, pro se, sent a letter to the court, requesting to withdraw his plea and asserting several
    claims of ineffective assistance of plea counsel. The court construed the letter as a motion to
    withdraw defendant’s guilty plea and denied it. Defendant subsequently filed through counsel a
    motion to reconsider his sentence. The court vacated one of defendant’s convictions for home
    invasion but otherwise denied the motion.
    ¶3               Defendant appeals, arguing that he was effectively deprived of his right to counsel
    at a hearing in which his pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea was heard and denied. We
    reverse and remand.
    ¶4                                        I. BACKGROUND
    ¶5               On April 20, 2018, the State charged defendant with armed robbery (720 ILCS
    5/18-2(a)(1) (West 2018)), residential burglary (id. § 19-3), and two counts of home invasion (id.
    § 19-6(a)(2)).
    ¶6               Defendant pled guilty to all four counts in exchange for the State’s agreement to
    cap its sentencing recommendation at 26 years’ imprisonment. As a factual basis for the plea, the
    State indicated its witnesses would testify that defendant entered the home of the two victims
    without authority. Defendant took money from one of the victims by the use of force and caused
    great bodily injury to the victims. One victim suffered a severe laceration to her head, and the
    other suffered severe lacerations and a stab wound to his arm. After admonishing defendant, the
    trial court accepted his plea as knowingly and voluntarily made.
    ¶7               On March 5, 2019, the trial court conducted defendant’s sentencing hearing. The
    court imposed concurrent sentences of 26 years’ imprisonment for armed robbery and the two
    counts of home invasion. The court found that the offense of residential burglary merged and
    imposed no sentence on that count.
    ¶8               On March 14, 2019, defendant, pro se, sent a letter to the trial court, stating that
    he wished to withdraw his plea and receive new court-appointed counsel. Defendant alleged that
    he was confused as to what rights he was giving up when he pled guilty due to the deficient
    -2-
    performance of his attorney. According to the letter, plea counsel had previously discussed with
    defendant the benefits of pleading guilty but mentally ill, but this was not the type of plea
    defendant ultimately entered. Defendant’s mental illness caused him to be easily confused.
    Defendant alleged that plea counsel failed to adequately investigate defendant’s case, share the
    entirety of the discovery with defendant, file a motion to suppress defendant’s confession, and
    present the entirety of defendant’s mental health evaluation as mitigating evidence during the
    sentencing hearing.
    ¶9             The trial court held a hearing on defendant’s pro se letter. The court stated that the
    letter appeared to be a motion to withdraw defendant’s guilty plea. Plea counsel agreed. Counsel
    stated he had not discussed the letter with defendant but had prepared some responses to it.
    Counsel indicated it would be difficult for him to represent defendant on the claims raised in the
    letter because defendant alleged that counsel had provided ineffective assistance.
    ¶ 10           The trial court asked defendant to discuss each of his claims of ineffective
    assistance of counsel. Defendant stated that counsel failed to file any pretrial motions, including
    a motion related to squad car camera footage and a motion for a bond reduction. Defendant also
    stated that counsel failed to show him the entirety of the discovery.
    ¶ 11           The trial court then asked counsel to respond to defendant’s claims. Counsel
    stated that he believed he adequately reviewed the discovery materials with defendant and noted
    the specific discovery items he had discussed with defendant. Counsel did not recall a squad car
    camera video being disclosed in discovery. Counsel reviewed the video of defendant’s interview
    with the police and did not believe that it was suppressible. Counsel had never discussed with
    defendant the possibility of pleading guilty but mentally ill prior to the plea. Counsel believed he
    had adequately presented defendant’s mental health issues in mitigation at sentencing. Counsel
    -3-
    did not recall a possible bond reduction motion. Counsel believed that defendant’s mental illness
    made communication with him difficult but did not believe that it affected the outcome of the
    case.
    ¶ 12           Defendant asked if a sentence reduction would be addressed at the hearing. The
    trial court stated defendant had not raised that in his letter but rather had requested to have a new
    attorney appointed and to withdraw his plea. The court said that if it allowed defendant to
    withdraw his plea, then his sentence would be vacated. The court stated: “So today I’m trying to
    figure out whether or not to allow you to withdraw your plea based upon ineffective assistance of
    counsel.” The court noted that if it were to allow defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea,
    it would have to appoint new counsel to represent defendant. The court further stated: “[T]hen
    the attorney would have to get up to speed; and then we would have to determine whether there’s
    a trial or not a trial; and then it depends on how that turns out when there would be a sentencing
    hearing.”
    ¶ 13           The trial court subsequently denied defendant’s pro se motion, stating: “I do not
    believe you had ineffective assistance of counsel; and your motion to withdraw your plea of
    guilty is denied.” Defendant indicated he wanted to appeal, and the court stated it would direct
    the clerk to file a notice of appeal. The court noted counsel had not filed his Illinois Supreme
    Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017) certificate. The court asked counsel if he wanted to speak
    with defendant and then file a Rule 604(d) certificate. The court stated: “I don’t know what other
    basis there would be to withdraw his plea or to reconsider the sentence if he’s going to appeal
    any of that. If there’s going to be an appeal about that, then I suppose I need a motion; but it’s
    been too late to file the motion.”
    -4-
    ¶ 14           Counsel stated he had reviewed the file in preparation to respond to defendant’s
    letter and had one phone conversation with defendant before he was transported to the
    Department of Corrections. Counsel asked the trial court if that would be sufficient to satisfy
    Rule 604(d). The court stated it believed that counsel needed to file a motion to reconsider
    defendant’s sentence if defendant wanted to challenge his sentence on appeal, but it did not know
    if such a motion would be timely. The matter was continued for defense counsel to file a motion
    to reconsider defendant’s sentence.
    ¶ 15           On May 28, 2019, counsel filed a motion to reconsider defendant’s sentence,
    arguing that one of defendant’s home invasion convictions should be vacated under one-act, one-
    crime principles and that the sentence was excessive. Defense counsel also filed a certificate of
    compliance with Rule 604(d). Following a hearing on the motion, the court vacated one of the
    home invasion convictions but otherwise denied the motion. A notice of appeal was filed in the
    trial court.
    ¶ 16           Upon the motion of defendant, the Illinois Supreme Court entered a supervisory
    order directing this court to allow defendant to file a new notice of appeal and to treat it as a
    properly perfected appeal from the denial of defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and
    motion to reconsider his sentence. Stone v. Justices of the Appellate Court, Fourth District, No.
    125777 (Ill. Mar. 2, 2020) (supervisory order).
    ¶ 17                                       II. ANALYSIS
    ¶ 18           On appeal, defendant argues that he was effectively denied his right to counsel at
    the hearing on his pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea because counsel had not fulfilled his
    obligations under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017). Specifically, defendant
    argues that when he filed his pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea, counsel failed to consult
    -5-
    with him regarding his contentions of error, review the court file and report of proceedings, and
    make the necessary amendments to the motion to adequately present his claims, as required by
    Rule 604(d). Defendant notes that he did not waive his right to be represented by counsel during
    postplea proceedings. Defendant contends the matter should be remanded for new postplea
    proceedings in compliance with Rule 604(d).
    ¶ 19            The State agrees the matter should be remanded for new postplea proceedings,
    albeit for different reasons. The State contends that defense counsel failed to amend defendant’s
    pro se motion into proper form, as required by Rule 604(d), by filing an impermissible motion to
    reconsider defendant’s sentence. The State maintains that counsel should have either filed a
    motion to withdraw defendant’s guilty plea or declined to file any motion. The State does not
    directly respond to the arguments raised in defendant’s brief beyond stating that it “disagrees
    with defendant’s particular claim of error.” We do not reach the alternative basis for remand set
    forth by the State, as we have found that remand is warranted on the ground set forth by
    defendant.
    ¶ 20            “A defendant is entitled to representation at every critical stage of any trial
    proceeding, and this right to counsel attaches when a defendant files a motion to withdraw his
    guilty plea.” People v. Cabrales, 
    325 Ill. App. 3d 1
    , 6 (2001). Pursuant to Rule 604(d), counsel
    must be appointed to assist an indigent defendant in filing postplea motions. Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d)
    (eff. July 1, 2017). Counsel is required to file a certificate in the trial court stating that he or she
    has (1) “consulted with the defendant either by phone, mail, electronic means or in person to
    ascertain defendant’s contentions of error in the sentence and the entry of the plea of guilty”;
    (2) “examined the trial court file and both the report of proceedings of the plea of guilty and the
    report of proceedings in the sentencing hearing”; and (3) “made any amendments to the motion
    -6-
    necessary for adequate presentation of any defects in those proceedings.” 
    Id.
     “Once
    a pro se defendant notifies the circuit court that he wishes to withdraw his guilty plea and appeal,
    the protections offered by Rule 604(d), i.e., the appointment of counsel and the attorney
    certificate, are automatically triggered.” People v. Edwards, 
    197 Ill. 2d 239
    , 256 (2001).
    ¶ 21           In the instant case, the trial court treated defendant’s pro se letter requesting to
    withdraw his plea on the basis that he received ineffective assistance of counsel as a motion to
    withdraw his guilty plea. The court proceeded to deny the motion at a hearing where defendant
    was effectively unrepresented by counsel. Counsel’s only involvement during the hearing was to
    dispute defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance. Counsel had not fulfilled the obligations set
    forth in Rule 604(d) prior to the denial of the motion, as he stated that he had not discussed
    defendant’s pro se letter with him before the hearing. Nor had defendant waived his right to
    counsel. Under these circumstances, defendant was deprived of his right to the assistance of
    counsel at the hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See People v. Vaughn, 
    200 Ill. App. 3d 765
    , 771 (1990) (“[A] defendant is entitled to assistance of counsel in the preparation of
    his motion to withdraw a guilty plea, which is a critical stage of the proceedings.”).
    ¶ 22           In reaching our holding, we note that the procedure employed in the instant
    case—namely, denial of defendant’s pro se motion after merely discussing the allegations of
    ineffective assistance of counsel with defendant and plea counsel—would have been appropriate
    if the court had conducted a preliminary Krankel inquiry rather than a hearing on the motion to
    withdraw defendant’s guilty plea. See People v. Ayres, 
    2017 IL 120071
    , ¶¶ 11-12. At a
    preliminary Krankel inquiry, the court does not determine whether a defendant has definitively
    established a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Rather, the only issue to be decided is
    whether new counsel should be appointed to argue the defendant’s pro se postplea or posttrial
    -7-
    claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. People v. Schnoor, 
    2019 IL App (4th) 170571
    , ¶ 65.
    New counsel should be appointed where the defendant shows possible neglect of the case. See
    Ayres, 
    2017 IL 120071
    , ¶ 11. However, the court may deny the pro se motion without appointing
    counsel if a defendant fails to show even possible neglect of the case—i.e., if the defendant’s
    claims lack merit or pertain only to matters of trial strategy. See 
    id.
    ¶ 23           Here, the trial court did not conduct a preliminary Krankel inquiry. The court did
    not indicate at any point that it was determining whether to appoint new counsel to argue
    defendant’s postplea claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or considering whether
    defendant had shown possible neglect of the case. Rather, the court expressly stated it was
    determining whether to allow defendant to withdraw his guilty plea based on his claims of
    ineffective assistance of counsel. The court indicated that if it granted defendant’s motion, new
    counsel would be appointed to represent defendant at a potential new trial, not to advance his
    postplea claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Under these circumstances, defendant was
    entitled to be represented by counsel and to the protections afforded by Rule 604(d) in the
    proceedings on the motion to withdraw defendant’s guilty plea. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. July
    1, 2017); Cabrales, 
    325 Ill. App. 3d at 6
    .
    ¶ 24                                     III. CONCLUSION
    ¶ 25           For the reasons stated, we reverse the judgment of the trial court denying
    defendant’s postplea motion and remand for new postplea proceedings in compliance with Rule
    604(d), including the opportunity for defendant to file a new motion to withdraw his guilty plea
    if he so chooses. If defendant persists in his claims of ineffective assistance of plea counsel, the
    trial court should hold a preliminary Krankel inquiry to determine whether to appoint new
    counsel to represent defendant in asserting his claims.
    -8-
    ¶ 26   Reversed and remanded.
    -9-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 4-19-0332

Citation Numbers: 2021 IL App (4th) 190332-U

Filed Date: 10/28/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/30/2024